Lincoln Electric Co. v. McLemore
2010 WL 4983147, 2010 Miss. LEXIS 639, 54 So. 3d 833 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Mississippi's latent injury discovery rule, the three-year statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff discovers, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered, the existence of an injury, not when the plaintiff discovers the specific medical diagnosis or the exact cause of that injury.
Facts:
- Stanley McLemore worked as a welder for nearly thirty years, using welding rods manufactured by Lincoln Electric and ESAB that contained manganese.
- In December 2001, McLemore, who was left-handed, developed slowness and weakness in his left hand, which interfered with his work.
- On September 3, 2002, neurologist Dr. Joseph Farina diagnosed McLemore with Parkinsonism or Parkinsonian syndrome.
- During the September 2002 visit, Dr. Farina informed McLemore that his condition could be related to his welding work.
- Following Dr. Farina's diagnosis and advice, McLemore sought legal counsel from an attorney.
- In December 2002, another physician, Dr. Albert Hung, advised McLemore to discontinue welding.
- It was not until October 2005 that a different physician, Dr. Michael Swash, diagnosed McLemore with manganism, a specific neurological disease caused by manganese exposure.
Procedural Posture:
- Stanley McLemore filed a complaint against Lincoln Electric and ESAB in the Circuit Court of Copiah County (trial court).
- The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, which the trial court denied.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a verdict for McLemore in the amount of $1,855,000.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict.
- The Defendants filed post-trial motions for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, alternatively, for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The Defendants (as appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Mississippi, with McLemore as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the discovery rule for latent diseases under Mississippi Code Section 15-1-49 toll the statute of limitations until a plaintiff receives a specific diagnosis (manganism), or does the statute begin to run when the plaintiff is first aware of a general injury (Parkinsonism) and its potential cause (welding)?
Opinions:
Majority - Chandler, Justice
No. The statute of limitations for a latent disease begins to run when the plaintiff discovers the injury and its potential cause, not when a specific diagnosis is made. The court held that the plain language of Mississippi Code Section 15-1-49(2), as interpreted in Angle v. Koppers, Inc., dictates that a cause of action accrues upon the discovery of the injury, not the discovery of the injury and its cause. McLemore knew he had an injury no later than September 3, 2002, when Dr. Farina diagnosed him with Parkinsonism and told him it could be work-related. McLemore's subsequent actions, such as seeking legal advice and filing prior lawsuits for 'serious neurological injury,' demonstrated his knowledge. Therefore, the three-year statute of limitations began on September 3, 2002, and his November 2005 lawsuit was untimely. The court also noted that McLemore's voluntary dismissal of a prior 2004 complaint did not toll the statute of limitations.
Dissenting - Kitchens, Justice
Yes. The statute of limitations should not have begun to run until McLemore discovered his specific, actionable injury, which the jury, as the finder of fact, determined was in October 2005. The majority improperly substitutes its own judgment for the jury's unanimous finding on a question of fact. Precedent holds that the discovery of an injury cannot occur until a medical diagnosis is made, and even the recent Angle decision tied the accrual date to the date of the plaintiff's last diagnosis. The jury found that McLemore could not have discovered his actual injury (manganism) until October 2005, and because this finding was supported by the evidence, the trial court's judgment should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and solidifies the Mississippi Supreme Court's narrow interpretation of the latent injury discovery rule established in Angle v. Koppers. It clarifies that the clock on the statute of limitations starts ticking as soon as a plaintiff has enough information to suspect an injury and its potential source, rather than waiting for a definitive medical diagnosis. This ruling places a significant burden on potential plaintiffs in latent disease cases to act quickly and investigate potential claims, even with incomplete medical information. It provides a clearer, earlier accrual date for the statute of limitations, which is favorable to defendants in toxic tort and product liability litigation.
